9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it to reach the same end indirectly. Given this position, the prayer made in the writ petition is allowed. Revenue will refund to the petitioner, as prayed. - W.P.(C) 7797/2023 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2023 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA Petitioner Through: Mr Prakul Khurana and Ms Vrinda Lakhotia, Advocates. Respondent Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) CM APPL. 30117/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 7797/2023 2. Issue notice. 3. Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner is that it has not been given credit for the tax deducted at source by CAL, which was not deposited with the respondent/revenue. 10. The petitioner thus avers that instead of being granted credit for the tax deducted at source by CAL, a demand amounting to Rs. 15,24,840/- was raised against it. 11. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court with the following substantive prayer: a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ order/ direction to the effect directing the Respondent to issue the refund amounting to Rs. 11,39,870 I- due to the Petitioner for AY 2011-12 12. This very issue, as indicated above, arose for consideration in Sanjay Sudan s case. It would, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses and the demand on account of tax credit mismatch cannot be enforced coercively 9. The question, therefore, which comes to fore, is as to whether the respondents/revenue can do indirectly what they cannot do directly. 9.1 The adjustment of demand against future refund amounts to an indirect recovery of tax, which is barred under Section 205 of the Act. 9.2 The fact that the instruction merely provides that no coercive measure will be taken against the assessee, in our view, falls short of what is put in place by the legislature via Section 205 of the Act. 10. Therefore, in our view, the petitioner is right inasmuch as neither can the demand qua the tax withheld by the deductor/employer be recovered from him, nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
